I'm a privacy pragmatist, writing about the intersection of law, technology, social media and our personal information. If you have story ideas or tips, e-mail me at khill@forbes.com. PGP key here.
These days, I'm a senior online editor at Forbes. I was previously an editor at Above the Law, a legal blog, relying on the legal knowledge gained from two years working for corporate law firm Covington & Burling -- a Cliff's Notes version of law school.
In the past, I've been found slaving away as an intern in midtown Manhattan at The Week Magazine, in Hong Kong at the International Herald Tribune, and in D.C. at the Washington Examiner. I also spent a few years traveling the world managing educational programs for international journalists for the National Press Foundation.
I have few illusions about privacy -- feel free to follow me on Twitter: kashhill, subscribe to me on Facebook, Circle me on Google+, or use Google Maps to figure out where the Forbes San Francisco bureau is, and come a-knockin'.

Scotland Herald Puts He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named On Its Front Page

Six little tweets in the UK have sparked a huge war over super injunctions — gag orders that British citizens can get to suppress news concerning themselves from making it into the mainstream media. The media can’t even report that a super injunction exists.

After a Twitter user alleged sexual indiscretions by a host of British celebrities that were allegedly protected by super injunctions, it set off a firestorm, forcing British lawmakers to think about whether such a thing is still feasible in the age of social media, and if it is, how to enforce it. One of the celebs, a soccer player who is alleged to have a super injunction for scoring goals with a woman who was not his wife, has filed a lawsuit to find out who the user behind the anonymous @InjunctionSuper account is. His lawyers identify him as “CTB” in the lawsuit, but it quickly emerged through social media and the American press (which is not subject to the super injunction) that the client was Manchester United player Ryan Giggs.

The latest salvo in the super injunctions battle (via Parmy Olson) comes from the Scottish Sunday Herald, which has put Giggs on its front page with a black bar over his eyes, to, um, protect his identity:

“Everyone knows that this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret. But we weren’t supposed to tell you that…,” reads the Herald’s front page. Due to the traffic to the Scotland Herald’s website, it’s down, though the Guardian reports that the article and photo have not been published online.

Text from the Scotland Herald’s editorial via the Guardian (which still cannot name Giggs, and instead accompanies the story with a photo of Imogen Thomas, the model with whom Giggs is alleged to have offsided. The tortuous caption for the photo reads “Imogen Thomas’s alleged former lover has been unmasked by a Scottish newspaper.”):

Today we identify the footballer whose name has been linked to a court superinjunction by thousands of postings on Twitter. Why? Because we believe it is unsustainable that the law can be used to prevent newspapers from publishing information that readers can access on the internet at the click of a mouse…

Because we believe it unfair that the law can not only be used to prevent the publication of information which may be in the public interest but also to prevent any mention of such a court order.

… and because it’s going to sell tons of newspapers.

The so-called superinjunction holds no legal force in Scotland where a separate court order is needed. We should point out immediately that we are not accusing the footballer of any misdeed. Whether the allegations against him are true or not has no relevance to this debate.

Can the super injunction withstand this assault from social media and mainstream media alike? So far, it seems that Giggs’s injunction has accomplished exactly the opposite of what he hoped for.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The injunction in this case is a plain ol’ simple injunction, not a so-called super injunction. The fact that it exists has been widely reported in the UK press, that wouldn’t happen if it was a super injunction as your own article says.

The first minister Alec Salmon is behind this to show the world that Scotland has a separate legal system, I hope the Herald also have the courage to report the Hollie Greig case and the gagging, throughout the WORLD according to their injunction , by the Scottish Government of the Englishman Robert Green who speaks for Hollie and Anne Grieg. A 65 year old retired gentleman who has been thrown in jail 3 times becuse of his speaking out , and unlike a footballer who is a multimillionaire has no assets other than his integrity

The first minister Alec Salmon is behind this to show the world that Scotland has a separate legal system, I hope the Herald also have the courage to report the Hollie Greig case and the gagging, throughout the WORLD according to their injunction , by the Scottish Government of the Englishman Robert Green who speaks for Hollie and Anne Grieg. A 65 year old retired gentleman who has been thrown in jail 3 times because of his speaking out , and unlike a footballer who is a multimillionaire has no assets other than his integrity

The first minister Alec Salmon is behind this to show the world that Scotland has a separate legal system, I hope the Herald also have the courage to report the Hollie Greig case and the gagging, throughout the WORLD according to their injunction , by the Scottish Government of the Englishman Robert Green who speaks for Hollie and Anne Grieg. A 65 year old retired gentleman who has been thrown in jail 3 times becuse of his speaking out , and unlike a footballer who is a multimillionaire has no assets other than his integrity